A comparative study of genderlects in the Tupi family

Françoise Rose1,2 & Natalia Chousou-Polydouri11. Dynamique du Langage (CNRS/Université Lyon2, France)2. University of Oregon, Eugene, USA

What are genderlects?

● distinctions based on the gender of the speaker and/or addressee● pragmatic phenomenon, distinct from grammatical gender● can be categorical (exclusive) or statistical (tendencies)● can be found in various domains (phonology, lexicon, morphology)

○ s ♀ ~ ts ♂oso / otso '(s)he is gone' ♀ / ♂

Guarayo (Höller 1932, Crowhurst p.c.)

○ kiracha ♀ ~ tendi ♂ ‘Venezuelan red howler’isaa ♀ ~ ngɨ ♂ ‘black-capped squirrel monkey’kʲaɨ ♀ ~ kʲiei ♂ ‘tufted capuchin’

Siriono (Gasparini 2015)

♀ ♂

tsa, etse ta 1SG

penu tana 1EXCL

ay uri 3SG

inu rana 3PLKokama (Vallejos 2015)

Categorical genderlects in the world’s languages

100 cases worldwide (Rose and Bakker 2016)53 cases in South America (Fleming 2012, Rose 2015)

How do genderlects emerge?

Very few diachronic studies

● Only one comparative study at family-level (Li 1982 on Atayalic dialects)

● Never reconstructed at the proto-stage of a family

● Dunn (2014) posits that genderlects are diachronically unstable.

How have these systems developed?

● Internal change (Alberdi 1995 on Basque; Dunn 2000 on Chukchi; Ribeiro 2012 on Karaja)

● Language mixing (Taylor 1956 on Island Carib)

● Diffusion (Kroskrity 1983 on Pueblo Southwest)

● Through taboo words or secret languages (Li 1983 on Atayal)

Goals and framework

● survey genderlect distinctions within the Tupi family● investigate the emergence and evolution of these distinctions

● diachronic pragmatics (Jucker 2006): ○ function-to-form mapping○ form-to-function mapping

● phylogenetic method: parsimony ancestral state reconstructions

Tupi languages

● South America● 64 languages● 10 groups (Rodrigues &

Cabral 2012) now 8 (Meira & Drude 2015)

● Tupi-Guarani = major group with 40 languages

● Phylogenetic tree combined from Galucio et al (2015) and Michael et al. (2015)

● added Nheengatu and Old Guarani

Tupi

Tupi-Guarani

Tupi languages

● throughout Greater Amazonia● in contact with various families

Data collection

Data collected on 41 languages (29 Tupi-Guarani + 12 of other branches)

Gender-indexing forms & non-gender-indexing cognates of these forms

Sources:

● a few studies specifically on the topic: Aweti (Drude 2002), Kokama (Faust 1959, Pottier 1972, Vallejos 2015)

● dictionaries and grammars● unpublished data from collaborators (Crowhurst, O’Hagan)● data often fragmentary, no discussion on origin

Page of Barbosa (1953) on Tupinamba genderlects - one of the best documented cases...

Survey results

Genderlects in the Tupi family

11 Tupi languages with genderlects in Rose (2015)

4 more detected since

→ 15 Tupi languages where the phenomenon is attested

→ highest known proportion of genderlects within a large family

Distribution of genderlects within the Tupi family

● in 2 higher level groups: Maweti-Guarani and Juruna

● 12 in Tupi-Guarani subgroup● seems like an inherited

feature

Geographical distribution of Tupi genderlects

Typological results

Genderlect types

Type 1 (speaker gender)

Type 2 (addressee gender)

Type 3 (speaker and addressee gender)

Type 1+3

Domains

● phonology: 1 language● morphology (person markers

and demonstratives): 4 languages

● lexicon: 4 languages● various discourse markers (yes,

no, interjections, vocatives etc): 14 languages

● some languages have genderlects in multiple domains: e.g. Aweti, Kokama, Omagua

Scope

rather marginal in general, affects only a few elements within a domain

7 lexical meanings in Siriono

5 discourse-marking functions in Tembé

3 pronominal categories in Kayabi

However, the affected elements can be more or less salient

Variation within domains

● In general, similar meanings/functions are affected across languages● 1st and 3rd person pronouns● Among discourse markers, the most commonly affected are:

○ vocatives○ words for “yes”○ pain interjections○ fear interjections○ surprise interjections

● Some words/functions are only affected in one or two language(s), e.g. ○ monkey species names (Siriono, Yuki)○ plural marker (Omagua, Kokama)

● However, for particular meanings/functions, the forms generally do not appear to be cognate across languages

e.g. yes distinction rather common

on the other hand some particles only in one or two languages

Relationship between the members of a pair

The forms of a gender-indexing pair can be:

● suppletive (most common)○ Kokama (Vallejos 2015): 1 exclusive pronoun penu ♀ / tana ♂○ Kamaiura (Seki 2000): particle for self-evidence (he) kyn ♀/ ja ♂

● phonetically different○ Juruna (Fargetti 2001) interjection of pity “poor him/her” hima ♀ / hiba ♂

● morphologically different○ Aweti deictics (Reiter 2011)

♀ ♂

uja jata near speaker sg.

akyj kita near addressee sg.

akoj kujtã away from both sg.

Tupi genderlects in a typological perspective

Within the family, there is diversity in● type (speech act participant(s) whose gender is indexed)● domain affected (phonology, pronominal morphology, lexicon, discourse

markers - or several of them)● functions/meanings affected within a domain● scope and saliency of genderlect distinction● type of relationship between the forms of a pair

Genderlects in the Tupi family are● not a homogeneous phenomenon● not very favorable to a hypothesis in terms of inherited patterns

Comparative results

Pronouns

4 languages with genderlect distinction in pronouns

3 independent developments:

● Omagua and Kokama: distinction reconstructable to Proto-Omagua-Kokama, male speech forms are innovations (O’Hagan 2011)

● Aweti: male speech forms are innovations● Kayabi: relatively “heavy” 3rd person system for a TG language, including

singular-plural distinction, masculine-feminine distinction (only in singular), and genderlect distinction

3rd person pronouns in Kayabi

Language 3sg masculine 3sg feminine 3pl

♀ ♂ ♀ ♂ ♀ ♂

Kayabi kıa 'ga kyna ee wa 'ga

Parintintin ga he ga

Xingu Asurini ga ẽ gy

● Innovation of masculine-feminine distinction in Proto-Parintintin-Kayabi

● Genderlects are a subsequent development in Kayabi

● female forms are innovations● parallel innovation in Asurini do Xingu (contact?)

Language 3sg masculine 3sg feminine 3pl

♀ ♂ ♀ ♂ ♀ ♂

Kayabi kıa 'ga kyna ee wa 'ga

Parintintin ga he ga

Monkey names in Siriono

● 3:1 gain:loss cost parsimony reconstruction● female forms have cognates in other TG languages● male forms are innovations

kiracha ♀tendi ♂howler monkey

isaa ♀ngɨ ♂black-capped squirrel monkey

kʲa ɨ ♀kʲiei ♂tufted capuchin

“Yes” gender-indexing forms

● “yes” genderlect distinction common in Tupi languages - 7 cases● 6 of them have eʔe as the female genderlect form● corresponding male forms: ta, pa, ʔuba● eʔe is the word for “yes” in many TG languages● pragmatic usage coded as an ordered character● no information on relative use by women and men, when more than one word

for yes are recorded, with the exception of Tupinamba

only women mostly women both mostly men only men

reconstruction of presence of eʔe “yes”

6 equally parsimonious scenarioseʔe has specialized as a female speech form 3 times

eʔe used mostly by women at the Proto-GroupIII-Southern node and at least mostly by women at the Proto-Southern node

ta “yes” becomes at least mostly used by men at the Proto-GroupIII-Southern node

Conclusions

Summary

● Tupi: language family with most genderlects attested● Typological diversity in the realization of genderlects● Genderlect distinctions cannot be reconstructed except for shallow nodes

(such as Proto-Omagua-Kokama), but● genderlect distinction for “yes” (eʔe ♀/ ta ♂) reconstructable to the

Proto-GroupIII-Southern node● lots of data about interjections and other discourse markers that we need to

explore more!

Thank you!

...and thanks to

Zachary O’Hagan for comments on cognacy judgements

Christian Fressard for the maps

References 1

● Alberdi, Jabier. 1995. The development of the Basque system of terms of address and the allocutive conjugation, in Towards a History of the Basque Language, J.I. Hualde, J.A. Lakarra and R.L. Trask (eds), Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 279-293.

● Dunn, Michael. 2000. Chukchi women's language: A historical-comparative perspective, in Anthropological Linguistics 42(3): 305-328.

● Dunn, Michael. 2014. Gender determined dialect variation, in The expression of gender, Greville Corbett (ed), Berlin: De Gruyter, 39-68.

● Faust, Norma Wille Faust. 1959. El lengua de los hombres y mujeres en Cocama, Peru: Instituto Linguistico de Verano.

● Fleming, Luke. 2012. Gender indexicality in the Native Americas: Contributions to the typology of social indexicality, in Language in Society 41(3): 295-320.

References 2

● Galucio, Ana Vilacy, Meira, Sergio, Birchall, Joshua, Moore, Denny, Gabas, Nilson Junior, Drude, Sebastian, Storto, Luciana, Picanço, Gessiane & Rodrigues, Carmen Reis. 2015. Genealogical relations and lexical distances within the Tupian linguistic family, in Boletim do Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi. Ciências humanas 10(2): 229-274.

● Jucker, Andreas H. 2006. Historical Pragmatics, in Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Keith Brown (ed), Oxford: Elsevier, 329-331.

● Kroskrity, Paul V. 1983. On Male and Female Speech in the Pueblo Southwest, in International Journal of American Linguistics 49(1): 88-91.

● Li, Paul Jen-Kuei. 1982. Male and female forms of speech in Atayal, in Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 53(2): 265-304.

● Li, Paul Jen-kuei. 1983. Types of lexical derivation of men’s speech in Mayrinax, in Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 54(3): 1-18.

References 3

● Meira, Sergio & Drude, Sebastian. 2015. A Summary Reconstruction of Proto–Maweti-Guarani Segmental Phonology, in Boletim do Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi. Ciências humanas 10(2): 275-296.Michael, Lev, Chousou Polydouri, Natalia, Bartolomei, Keith, Donnelly, Erin, Meira, Sérgio, Wauters, Vivian & O'Hagan, Zachary. 2015. A Bayesian phylogenetic internal classification of the Tupi-Guarani family, in Liames 15(2): 193-221.O'Hagan, Zachary J. 2011. Proto-Omagua-Kokama: Grammatical Sketch and Prehistory, University of California, Berkeley.

● Pottier, Bernard. 1972. Langage des hommes et langage des femmes en cocama (tupi), in Langues et Techniques, Nature et Société, Vol. I, Jacqueline Thomas and Lucien Bernot (eds), Paris: Editions Klincksieck, 385-387.Ribeiro, Eduardo. 2012. A grammar of Karaja, PhD Dissertation, Chicago University.

● Rodrigues, Aryon & Cabral, Ana Suelly Arruda Câmara. 2012. Tupían, in South American Historical Linguistics, Lyle Campbell (ed), Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, 495-574.

References 4

● Rose, Françoise. 2015. On male and female speech and more. A typology of categorical gender indexicality in indigenous South American languages, in International Journal of American Linguistics 81(4): 495-537.

● Rose, Françoise & Bakker, Peter. 2016. “A typological survey of genderlects”, paper presented at the Colloquium, University of Oregon, Eugene, October 7th 2016.

● Taylor, Douglas. 1956. On dialectal divergence in Island Carib, in International Journal of American Linguistics 25(1): 62-68.

Sources 1

● Barbosa, A. Lemos. 1956. Curso de Tupi Antigo: Gramática, Exercícios, Textos, Rio de Janeiro: Livraria São José.

● da Silva, Raynice Geraldine Pereira 2010. Estudo morfossintático da língua sateré-mawé, PhD, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Linguística, Unicamp, Campinas.

● Dietrich, Wolf. 1986. El idioma chiriguano: gramática, textos, vocabulario, Madrid: ICI.● Dobson, Rose. 1997. Gramática Prática Com Exercícios da Língua Kayabi, Sociedade Internacional de

Lingüística, Cuiabá.● Drude, Sebastian. 2002. Fala masculina e feminina em Aweti, in Línguas Indígenas Brasileiras.

Fonologia, Gramática e História. Atas do I Encontro Internacional do GTLI da ANPOLL, Ana Suelly Cabral and Aryon Rodrigues (eds), Belem: Editoria Universitária U.F.P.A., 177-190.

● Duarte, Fabio Bonfim. 2007. Estudos de Morfossintaxe Tenetehara, Belo Horizonte: Faculdade de Letras da UFMG.

● Fargetti, Cristina Martins. 2001. Estudo fonologico e morfosintatico da lingua juruna, Lingüistica, Unicamp.

● Gasparini, Noé & Dicarere Mendez, Victor Hugo. 2015. Diccionario Siriono-Castellano-Ingles, ms.● Höller, Alfredo. 1932. Grammatik der Guarayo-Sprache, Hall in Tirol: Verlag der Missionsprokura der

P.P. Franziskaner.

Sources 2

● Magalhães, Marina. 2007. Sobre a morfologia e a sintaxe da lingua Guaja (familia Tupi-Guarani), PhD Dissertation, Departamento de Lingüística, Português e Línguas Clássicas, Universidade de Brasília.

● Ortiz, Elio & Caurey, Elias. 2012. Diccionario etimológico y etnográfico de la lengua guaraní hablada en Bolivia, La Paz: Plural Editores.

● Pereira, Antonia Alves. 2009. Estudo morfossintático do Asuriní do Xingu, PhD dissertation, UNICAMP.

● Praça, Walkíria Neiva. 2007. Morfossintaxe da língua Tapirapé, Tese de doutorado, Departamento de Lingüística, Português e Línguas Clássicas, Universidade de Brasília.

● Reiter, Sabine. 2011. Ideophones in Aweti, PhD dissertation, Christian Albrechts University, Kiel.● Ruiz de Montoya, Antonio. 1724. Arte de la lengua guarani. Con los Escolios Anotaciones y Apendices

del P. Paulo Restivo de la misma Compañia. , Pueblo de Santa Maria La Mayor.● Seki, Lucy. 2000. Gramática do Kamaiurá, Campinas: Editora da Unicamp.● Vallejos, Rosa. 2015. La indexicalidad de género en kukama-kukamiria desde una perspectiva

tipologica, in Estudios de Lenguas Amerindias 3: contribuciones al estudio de las lenguas originarias de América, Ana Fernandez, Albert Alvarez and Zarina Estrada (eds), Hermosillo: Universidad de Sonora, 199-225.

● Villafañe, L. 2004. Gramática Yuki. Lengua Tupí-Guaraní de Bolivia, Tucumán, Argentina: Ediciones del Rectorado, Universidad Nacional de Tucumán.